DEOSNEWS Vol. 1  No. 7
Copyright 1991 DEOS - The Distance Education Online Symposium

The American Journal of Distance Education and
The American Center for the Study of Distance Education
The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education
403 South Allen Street, Suite 206
University Park, Pennsylvania 16801-5202, U.S.A.

Telephone: +814-863-3764      Fax: +814-865-5878

DEOS Editor: Morten Flate Paulsen, Bitnet: MFP101@PSUVM
Internet: MFP101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU, CompuServe: 76436,350

DEOS Review Committee: Philip W. Pinder

DEOS acknowledges and is grateful for the financial support
provided by the Annenberg/CPB Project.

DEOSNEWS has 280 subscribers in 20 countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIAL

English is my second language. Like most of the subscribers in
the twenty countries we now serve, I would rather write in my
native language. But we all realize that we have to study foreign
languages to succeed in international communication.

Fortunately, I have several excellent computer applications that
help me improve my English. The WordPerfect spellingchecker and
thesaurus is indispensable, and I find the Gramatik IV grammar
and style checker helpful. Other tools I find useful are: Clue -
a resident bilingual dictionary, Franklin Speaking Ace - a
calculator-like device that can pronounce each of the 90.000
words in the built in dictionary, and several drill and practice
applications.

So, the question is, do distance education institutions utilize
the potential of computer-assisted language learning?

COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING AT A DISTANCE:
An International Survey

An article published in the American Journal of Distance Educa-
tion, Vol. 5. No. 1.

By Dominique Abrioux
Associate Professor of French and
Associate Vice-President Academic at Athabasca University

Please post comments or questions to the author on Bitnet:
DOMINIQU@CS.ATHABASCAU.CA

Introduction

Whereas Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has become
fully entrenched as an effective pedagogy for the teaching of
second languages (L2) in campus-based programs, a recent search
of the distance education literature suggested a paucity of
applications in open or distance-based offerings (Abrioux, 1989).
   The present study, by directly approaching practitioners of L2
instruction in distance education institutions, seeks both to
quantify the current and anticipated use of CALL in distance
education settings at the tertiary level and to analyze the
evolving trend.

Methodology

   Three sources were used to identify institutions inter-
nationally that either were or might be engaged in the university
or university-level teaching at a distance of second languages:
the NUCEA Independent Study Catalogue (1989), the ICDE Institu-
tional Membership List (1988), and a personal index of Distance
Teaching Universities. The first reference, because it consists
of a compilation by discipline and by level of all courses taught
at a distance in North America, provided a comprehensive, all but
definitive list of L2 university-level instruction at a distance
in North America. The other two sources, however, identified
institutions but not disciplines, and thus were expected to
elicit in some cases responses that would indicate that they were
not engaged in L2 instruction at a distance. A mailing list was
compiled of seventy-two institutions: eight Canadian, thirty-
-seven American, and twenty-seven from other countries in the
world. In the Spring of 1989, these institutions were sent a
questionnaire along with a cover letter. During the six months
that followed the mailing, thirty-eight responses were received.
In December of 1989, reminders and a second copy of the survey
were sent to the thirty-four institutions that had failed to
reply. The covering letter was similar to the original one but
did emphasize that this was a second attempt to receive the
information being requested and asked for assistance to ensure
that the package was directed to the appropriate person in that
institution. As a result of this second mail-out, a further
twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, thus providing infor-
mation from sixty-five institutions, that is, a 90% response
rate. Of these sixty-five, however, seventeen reported that they
were not engaged in L2 instruction at a distance, thereby provid-
ing, for the purpose of further study, a sample of forty-eight
institutions: eight Canadian, twenty-five American, and fifteen
from other countries.

Languages Taught at a Distance

Table 1 identifies the various languages taught at a distance by
the surveyed institutions:

Table 1. Languages Taught at a Distance.
________________________________________________________________

Language                Frequency            % of Institutions

French                        36                  75%
Spanish                       30                  63%
German                        29                  60%
English                       21                  44%
Russian                        9                  19%
Italian                        8                  17%
Latin                          8                  17%
Chinese                        7                  15%
Japanese                       6                  13%
Greek(classical)               4                   8%
Hebrew                         2                   4%
Norwegian                      2                   4%
Others(20)                     1                   2%
________________________________________________________________

Given the composition of the sample and the fact that fully two-
thirds of the participating institutions use English as the sole
or primary language of instruction in their teaching, it should
not be surprising to note that French was identified as the most
frequently taught second language at a distance. Next to English,
French is, after all, spoken in more countries than any other
language. Understandably, given the status of the French language
in Canada, all eight institutions in that country reported
teaching French at a distance. In fact, four of these univer-
sities taught no language other than French at a distance. In the
United States, French is taught at a distance by 84% of the
institutions surveyed. This result identifies French almost as
popular as Spanish and German, each of which is taught at a
distance in 88% of the universities or colleges in the United
States. Were one to discount the Canadian figures, which are
significant in contributing to the overall first place ranking of
French, it is worth noting that French, German, and Spanish are
taught with almost identical frequency in the other countries
surveyed.
   The relatively poor showing of English can, as has been noted,
be attributed to the sample itself. That English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) is taught at a distance in only two Canadian and four
American institutions is due both to the anglophone nature of the
institutions surveyed in those countries and to the tertiary
level of studies for which they are primarily or exclusively
responsible. (With the exception of the Tele-University du
Quebec, all institutions participating in this study were, in
fact, anglophone.) ESL is instructed at a distance in all fifteen
institutions surveyed outside of North America and in six of
these cases it is the only L2 taught.
   Recent educational developments in Europe - for example, the
establishment of the European Open University and several major
funding programs sponsored by the European Commission (including
LINGUA) - attest to the pivotal role that L2 in general, and ESL
in particular, have already started to play in European distance
education. A 1990 newsletter devoted to distance teaching in
Europe, EADTU-NEWS (European Association of Distance Teaching
Universities) confirms the importance that is now being at-
tributed to L2 at a distance in Europe. It reports that open
university language programs are available in Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and Spain, with ESL being
taught the most frequently to the greatest number of students.
Significant new programming in L2 is currently being planned by
the British Open University (French) and the Dutch Open Univer-
sity (various languages).

CAI Applications in Participating Institutions

   Participants were asked to identify both the courses (language
and level) and the nature of the computer-assisted instruction
(CAI) intervention that occurred in the distance delivery of L2
courses in their institution. CAI was categorized into four
general headings: Computer Assisted Language Learning (remedia-
tion drills, tutorials, games, simulations, etc.); Computer
Conferencing; Computer Managed Instruction (CMI: marking of
assignments or exams, exam item banking, record keeping and
tracking, placement testing, etc.); and other (a catch-all
category). (For a detailed examination of CAI applications for
the distance delivery of L2, consult Abrioux 1989.)
   Only seven of the forty-eight institutions engaged in L2 in-
struction at a distance indicated any use of CAI in their cour-
ses. Table 2 presents the findings in this area:

Table 2.  Use of CAI in Language Courses.
_________________________________________________________________

Institution     Language(s)   CALL      Confer.   CMI       Other

Athabasca       French        Yes                 Yes
Brigham Young   Chinese       Yes
                Japanese      Yes
FernUniversitat English       Yes
Mauritius*      French
                English
Payam-E-Noor*   English
Ramkhamhaeng    Chinese                           Yes
                English                           Yes
                French                            Yes
                German                            Yes
                Japanese                          Yes
                Russian                           Yes
                Spanish                           Yes
Waterloo        French                            Yes
_________________________________________________________________
*These institutions did not complete the questionnaire in a way
that permitted identification of how CAI is used in these courses

   Only the information provided by Athabasca University (Ca-
nada), Brigham Young University (U.S.A.), FernUniversitat (Ger-
many), Ramkhamhaeng University (Thailand) and Waterloo University
(Canada) lends itself to further analysis at this time.
   Athabasca University reported two applications of CAI in the
teaching of French, the one in CALL, the other in Computer
Managed Instruction. This institution provides CALL software for
beginner, intermediate, and advanced students in its two major
regional centers. Remedial drill and practice software, commer-
cially developed and selected for its generic application, runs
on IBM compatible microcomputers with color monitors. Students
who live within commuting distance of Edmonton and Calgary are
encouraged to engage in this optional, supplementary activity.
Copyright costs associated with the software make it too expens-
ive for the university to provide students with loaned copies of
the software. Moreover, the requirement of a color monitor to run
the program would, in any event, significantly reduce the number
of students who could benefit from the distribution of the
software were that possible.
   Student Record Keeping on Unix (TRIX), the CMI application,
allows for the individual tracking of a student's progress
through any given course by both central (academic) and home-
based (tutorial) staff on the university's mainframe computer.
Reports from TRIX also provide the university with comparative
data on the performance of students (grades, completion rates,
frequency of contact, etc.) and hence of tutors. Brigham Young
University limits its use of CAI in the distance delivery of L2
to CALL applications for its courses in Chinese and Japanese for
beginners. Staff at this institution have developed software in
BASIC and have also used HyperCard as an authoring tool for
applications on Apple microcomputers. Students in these courses
must perform in excess of twenty hours of CALL in each course.
The onus for providing the hardware on which to run the programs
rests entirely with the student. Applications, in order of
priority, are used in: tutorials for teaching new material;
written comprehension exercises; communicative role playing; and
remediation drill and practice.
   Computer-managed instruction applications have been used by
the FernUniversitat in its delivery of intermediate English L2
(ESL) for several years. The PC-Tutor correcting system finds
applications in the marking of student assignments and examin-
ations, exam item banking, placement testing, and the recording
and tracking of student progress through the course. (For a
complete description, see Kuffner 1989.) In addition, this
university has also developed remediation drill and practice
software that is used for acquiring vocabulary in specialized L2
courses such as English for Economists and English for Mathema-
ticians and Engineers. These micro-based lessons, which can be
taken either in the student's home, place of work, or at the
FernUniversitat itself, are optional activities for students in
these courses and comprise fewer than ten hours of study in
either case. The FernUniversitat does have a policy in place that
enables students to rent a PC from the institution.
   Given the vast size of Ramkhamhaeng University (500,000
enrollments per year), it is understandable that this institution
makes extensive use of CMI (exam marking, item banking, student
tracking) in the administration of its L2 delivery, as it does in
the delivery of all its courses both on and off campus. However,
while many of Ramkhamhaeng's students study at a distance (only
100,000 or so attend classes on campus), the quasi absence of
instructional material that has been developed for these students
makes it very difficult to classify this learning situation as
distance education.
   Waterloo University has developed CALL software for the
distance teaching of French. This case is noteworthy since it
involves an experiment that was conducted in 1989/1990 with
students enrolled in the beginners' course. CALL software was
developed with the assistance of a grant from the Ministry of
Colleges and Universities in order to supplement the written
material that was presented in the course text. This software ran
on IBM compatible PC's, access to which was the students' respon-
sibility. Notwithstanding this fact, the 100 requests for soft-
ware that came in from the 123 students registered in the course
clearly exceeded all expectations. Understandably, perhaps,
Waterloo University has a policy which allows for fifty computers
to be lent to distance-based students who enroll in Computer
Science 100. There is no such policy for L2 students.
   Finally, all participants in the survey were asked whether
their institution had any definite plans that would cause them to
answer differently one year hence when identifying the language
courses taught at a distance using computers. Of the forty-eight
institutions, only three responded in the affirmative, and two
indicated uncertainty. The Empire State College, which at present
does not teach L2 at a distance, is currently exploring the use
of computers and video in the distance delivery of language
courses and, depending on the outcome of the pilot studies, may
undertake such instruction soon. Whereas the Universidad Estatal
a Distancia in Costa Rica is still considering the use of pro-
grammed instruction in its distance delivery of ESL, the National
Open University in the Republic of China is currently developing
CAI courseware that will soon be included in its ESL course.

CAI Applications in Other Surveyed Institutions

   All four institutions that identified themselves as using CALL
in distance delivered courses also reported additional institu-
tional uses of CAL (Computer Assisted Learning) in other disci-
plines (Accounting, Computer Science, Economics, Education,
English (L1) Writing Skills, Remedial Mathematics, Statistics.)
Only Computer Science was taught with the aid of CAL in each one
of these institutions; the other disciplines were referenced in
this regard only once by any of these four institutions.
   A total of twenty-five of the forty-eight institutions (52%)
that reported teaching languages at a distance, also indicated
the use of CAL applications in support of the following other
subjects being taught at a distance: Computer Science (12),
Education (8), Mathematics (7), Management (5), Statistics (5),
Economics (3), Accounting (2), English Grammar (2), Science (2),
Industrial Engineering (1), Legal Studies (1), Library Science
(1), Literature (1), Management of Information Systems (1),
Marketing (1), Political Science (1), Psychology (1), Resource
Management (1), Social Studies (1), Taxation (1), and Technology
(1).
   Finally, respondents to the survey were also asked, if the
situation warranted, to identify whether the on-campus teaching
of languages involved CALL. Twenty-one of the institutions that
did not use CALL in distance delivery situations identified
themselves as dual mode institutions, and of these, eight (38%)
reported on-campus CALL in support of students registered in
on-campus L2 courses. Moreover, all three dual mode institutions
that had reported using CALL in the distance teaching situation
also identified CALL in support of on-campus teaching in their
own institution.

Discussion and Conclusions

   One must conclude that the 15% CAI usage and the 9% CALL usage
in distance language teaching reported in this study is dispro-
portionately low. This is particularly true when one compares
these figures to on-campus L2 programs in which, for example,
almost one North American institution in two incorporates CALL
into its L2 instruction (Craven and Sinyor 1987, Verburg 1987,
Abrioux 1989). This discrepancy is reinforced by another finding
of this survey: whereas ten of the twenty-three institutions that
taught L2 both on campus and via distance delivery used CALL in
on-campus offerings, only two of these institutions made CALL
applications available to distance-based students. This repre-
sents a significant difference in teaching methodology, one that
was not identified in Holmberg's recent attempt to compare the
methodologies used in teaching L2 on-campus and at a distance
(Holmberg 1989).
   Two principal reasons can be offered for the significant
under-utilization of CALL in distance L2 learning situations. One
results from the medium itself, the other from its particular
application to language learning at a distance. Notwithstanding
the fact that more than half of the surveyed institutions report-
ed CAI support in the delivery at a distance of subjects other
than L2, it is generally accepted that CAI plays a far less
significant role in distance education than it does in the more
traditional learning environment.
   Some, such as Perry (1984), would suggest that this under--
utilization results from the fact that the majority of distance
education is performed within the confines of traditional insti-
tutions and that these institutions seek out the cheapest method
of delivery, usually print. This practice might explain, in part,
the low reliance on distance CALL applications in dual-mode
institutions, and it does help to understand why only two of the
fifteen distance teaching universities reported using this medium
in L2 instruction.
   Institutions dedicated to distance education do not boast par-
ticularly good track records when it comes to experimenting with
different delivery modes. These institutions tend to invest
heavily in a particular medium (print, television or radio), or
in some combination thereof, and are thus locked into an infra-
structure that supports established media at the expense of
newer, untried technologies (Bates 1990, Curran 1990). In this
context CAI applications are considered as expensive add-ons,
judged enhancements rather than key components of the educational
system.
   The situation is yet more complex. Enabling student work with
CAI through hardware and software is unquestionably more diffi-
cult in the case of decentralized learning. Policies concerning
access to hardware and on-line or off-line learning materials or
systems pose logistical and financial problems that are unique to
distance delivery. The fact that CAI may also prove to be a
viable partial solution to the problems, both educational and
administrative, that result from the separation of learner/peer/-
instructor does not render the problem any the easier to resolve.
   In the case of L2 learning at a distance, one can differenti-
ate between CALL software that requires minimal hardware support
that is readily accessible to many distance-based students (ie.
only a microcomputer) and other applications that necessitate a
more sophisticated investment in peripheral (audio/video) devices
(see Abrioux 1989). That the survey revealed no use of the second
category of CALL comes as no surprise. The heavy investment in
hardware that these applications necessitate has accompanied, on
most campuses, the revival and transformation of the traditional
language laboratory. In its metamorphosed form, the new language
laboratory has become a media booth in which the computer and its
peripheral audio and video devices play a key role (Thomas 1988).
This interactive station, arguably one of most exciting develop-
ments in language teaching and acquisition today, is practically
impossible to recreate at a distance given the necessary invest-
ment in hardware. Unfortunately, it would seem that for the
foreseeable future distance educators involved in L2 teaching are
not going to be able to reap the benefits of these state of the
art advances in CALL, except in so far as their delivery system
allows for periodic visits by students to learning centers.
   Less expected, however, and somewhat more difficult to ex-
plain, is the very limited use that distance L2 programs make of
more conventional, and more readily accessible, CALL applica-
tions: drill and practice tutorials, simulations, computer
conferencing, and electronic mail. Several respondents to the
survey gratuitously indicated that were it not for the costs
involved they would very much like to make use of CAI software in
their courses. Clearly, cost is one reason for the restricted use
of computerized applications in distance L2 learning. When faced
with the unenviable dilemma of either investing time and money in
the development of one's own software or of passing the expensive
software purchase costs on to students, most distance educators
seem to opt out.
   There is, perhaps, a more significant reason for this lacuna:
whereas drill and practice CALL tutorials and game simulations
can certainly aid the language learner to develop both grammati-
cal and vocabulary skills, these applications do not directly
address the key problem facing the distant learner: synchronic
oral communication. Rather, they serve to enhance aspects of
language acquisition which, while they certainly might benefit
from this alternative approach, have not proved to be a methodo-
logical problem for L2 course developers.
   Any attempt to explain the limited role of CALL in this
learning situation must examine the pedagogy of the discipline.
Whereas the ever-present print, television, radio, and audio
cassettes have been the primary vehicles used for L2 instruction
at a distance during the past twenty years, the absence of any
real, live, human element has consistently been identified as a
methodological concern: As Williams and Sharma put it:
     Perhaps the most obvious question is whether or not lan-
     guages, essentially tools of oral communication, can be
     taught effectively with a geographical distance between
     teacher and student. If language acquisition at a distance
     is not a contradiction in terms, has sufficient consider-
     ation been given to methodologies which will overcome this
     barrier to acquiring what is essentially a communicative
     skill? (Williams and Sharma 1988,126-127)

   Course developers have rightfully been preoccupied with
seeking ways to incorporate human interaction and oral language
production into the distance learning situation (Abrioux 1982;
Davis 1988; Holmberg 1989; Karpiak 1985.) While all would agree
that in-person meetings, telephone tutorials, and teleconference
sessions are significant ways of providing interaction, the merit
of CALL in this regard remains somewhat questionable in some
minds: "Communication to me means interaction between human
beings: 'two-way traffic'. However valuable interaction with a
computer program may be, it does not represent human communica-
tion" (Holmberg 1990). Even if one were to disagree with Holmberg
on this point, we have already noted that the CALL applications
that come the closest to permitting human interaction in the form
of dialogue are the very ones to which distance learners cannot
avail themselves. It would seem that in this regard one should
not expect much more from computer applications in distance
education than the provision, via electronic mail and computer
conferencing, for non-contiguous, written interaction.
   This internationally conducted survey clearly demonstrates
that distance based L2 course developers have relied, and will
continue to rely, on media other than computers in order to meet
the challenges that the distance delivery of L2 gives rise to.
Whereas CMI will undoubtedly continue to benefit L2 learners at a
distance in much the same way as it can facilitate and improve
the management of all instruction and learning at a distance, one
cannot anticipate significant CAI applications for distance-based
L2 learners; grammar drills and practice exercises will continue
to contribute only marginally to the learning at a distance of L2
for some time to come. While this is understandable given the
up-front costs that are required to develop appropriate software,
it is also unfortunate, since these applications have particular-
ly useful applications in the acquisition of languages at a
distance (see Abrioux 1989).
   Similarly, the results of this survey do not allow for any
optimism in anticipating uses and applications of state-of-the--
art interactive computerized language stations in distance
education. Given the many advantages that CALL is now recognized
as providing to L2 learners, it is regrettable that distance
learners will not be in a position to really benefit from current
and future developments for some time to come.

References

Abrioux, D.A.M.X. 1982. L'Utilisation des medias dans l'enseigne-
ment distance des langues: Un programme de l'Universite d'Atha-
basca. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education 8:48-
50.

Abrioux, D.A.M.X. 1989. Computer-assisted language learning and
distance education. Journal   of Distance Education 4:20-35.

Bates, T. 1990. The challenge of technology for European distance
education. In Media and Technology in European Distance Educa-
tion, ed. A. W. Bates, 17-26. Milton Keynes: European Association
of Distance Teaching Universities.

Craven, M. L. and R. Sinyor. 1987. The current status of Canadian
CALL. Canadian Modern Language Review 43:508-524.

Curran, C. 1990. Factors affecting the costs of media in distance
education. In Media and Technology in European Distance Educa-
tion, ed. A. W. Bates, 27-39. Milton Keynes: European Association
of Distance Teaching Universities.

Davis, J.N. 1988. Distance education and foreign language educa-
tion: Towards a coherent approach. Foreign Language Annals
21:547-550.

Holmberg, B. 1989. Distance teaching of modern languages. ZIFF
Project. Hagen: FernUniversitat.

Holmberg, B. 1990. The Role of media in distance education as a
key academic issue. In Media and Technology in European Distance
Education, ed A. W. Bates, 41-46. Milton Keynes: European Associ-
ation of Distance Teaching Universities.

ICDE. 1987. The ICDE Membership Directory. Milton Keynes: The
Open University.

Karpiak, R. 1985. Language teaching through distance education:
Some approaches to two-way communication. Canadian Journal of
University Continuing Education 11:17-33.

Kuffner, R. 1989. The personal (computer) touch: Tutor marked
assignments with the aid of computers. Research in Distance
Education 1:12-13.

NUCEA. 1989. The Independent Study Catalogue, 4th ed. Washington,
D.C.: National University Continuing Education Association.

Perry, W. 1984. The State of Distance-Learning Worldwide. Milton
Keynes: United Nations University International Centre for Dis-
tance Learning.

Thomas, A. 1988. Le Laboratoire de langues: de la cabine individ-
uelle la mediateque. In L'Universite de Demain: Courants Actuels
et Apports de la Didactique des Langues a l'Enseignement du
Francais Langue Seconde, eds. C. Besnard and C. Elkabas, 141-158.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Verburg, G. 1987. Language learning centres: Questionnaire
summary. Unpublished.

Williams, S. and P. Sharma 1988. Language acquisition by distance
education: An  Australian survey. Distance Education 9:127-146.
=========================================================================

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education